Friday, March 23, 2012

Ann Furedi: Breaking the 1967 Abortion Act is ‘a grey area’

Ann Furedi, Chief Executive of BPAS (British Pregnancy Advisory Service), was interviewed this morning by the BBC Radio 4 Today programme concerning the routine breaches of the law discovered by spot checks on more than 250 abortion clinics.

Further to the discovery last month that doctors at three abortion clinics had agreed to terminations based on nothing but the gender of the baby, it has now been established that doctors are ‘pre-signing’ the necessary paperwork to grant professional medical consent for abortions to proceed. The 1967 Abortion Act requires the consent of two doctors, and that consent (quite obviously, you might think) must be based upon full and proper examination of the woman and made with the full awareness of her circumstances. The doctors’ consent amounts to the certification of the legality of the procedure. In the absence of the proper statutory assessment of the medical grounds for performing an abortion, it is difficult to see how this does not constitute the unlawful termination of a baby, and so murder.

Asked about this by James Naughtie on Today, Ann Furedi responded that the statutory conditions in the 1967 Abortion Act are ‘a grey area’.

Are they? Are they really ‘grey’, or did Parliament make it perfectly clear that, except in emergencies, two doctors must agree for a woman to have an abortion? Is not the objective of this stipulation quite plain to comprehend? Is it not designed to mitigate if not eradicate the possibility of error, bias or corruption? Is it not, in short, designed to prevent women seeking abortion ‘on demand’?

What is ‘grey’ about this? How can Ann Furedi justify up to 20 per cent of abortion clinics routinely breaking the law with an appeal to the conditions for termination being ‘a grey area’? Isn’t she paid c£120k a year (undisclosed) to uphold the law at least? How can the UK’s second-highest-paid CEO of a charity be so complacent about the need for abortion providers to adhere to the letter of the Act of Parliament by which their business is regulated?

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is today handing departmental files to the police for them to investigate these allegations. He said: "I am shocked and appalled to learn that some clinics – which look after women in what are often difficult circumstances – may be allowing doctors to pre-sign abortion certificates. This is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Abortion Act. The rules in the Abortion Act are there for a reason - to ensure there are safeguards for women before an abortion can be carried out. To protect women the right checks and balances must be in place.

Furedi’s response to this?

Utterly astonishing.

She said: "Mr Lansley says he is shocked and appalled by the practices he has uncovered. BPAS is shocked and appalled that Mr Lansley has found it necessary to inform journalists of alleged breaches of the abortion law before he has informed those responsible for providing the services that have been investigated, and before the investigation is concluded."

So, there you have it. On the one hand we have the will of Parliament, concerned primarily with the physical and mental health of women. On the other is the will of BPAS, concerned primarily with media scrutiny of their business. Andrew Lansley is ‘shocked and appalled’ by the unlawful killing of unborn babies, whose lives are snuffed out either because they’re the wrong sex or because two reckless doctors can’t be bothered to carry out the necessary examination. Ann Furedi is ‘shocked and appalled’ that the Secretary of State is 'politicaly motivated'. She is completely unfazed by the discovery of systematic deception, corruption and fraud in the failure of abortion clinics to adhere to due process.

And there we see the respective priorities.

Abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and BPAS exist to make money and then to increase their profits year on year. They are competing in a free market. That is why Nadine Dorries sought last year to detach the counselling process from the abortion provider, since they quite obviously have a vested interest in women aborting their babies. In light of these recent discoveries, it is obvious to all reasonable people that Mrs Dorries was quite right. And, in light of Ann Furedi’s ‘slippery and evasive’ interview, it is obvious to all reasonable people that she is palpably unfit to lead the British Pregnancy Advisory Service on account of her manifest inability to advise on the clearest points of law, not to mention her flagrant obfuscation of that law.

108 Comments:

It seems those who have a statutory duty to uphold the particular law plainly stated that is applicable to their remit are able to bypass it's requirement as a neccessary convenience (greyness).

Let now us see if the police and judiciary also are able to uphold their statutory remit for those breaking plainly stated laws that are applicable to the incident or if they claim their is a 'greyness' regarding their duties to uphold said law against law breakers.

"Mr Lansley says he is shocked and appalled by the practices he has uncovered. BPAS is shocked and appalled that Mr Lansley has found it necessary to inform journalists of alleged breaches of the abortion law before he has informed those responsible for providing the services that have been investigated, and before the investigation is concluded."

In short,

"OK, we might be illegally killing babies, but you people are just plain rude!"

How did Ms Furedi come to be appointed to her position? How is she allowed to remain in employment; doesn't she know that Mr Lansley is effectively her boss? After all, isn't Ms Furedi using taxpayers money to kill babies; money that is doled out to her by Mr Lansley's department? If she worked for me, well she wouldn't be.

I used to be a liberal - then I grew up. In one sense, it's a relief to find out just how bad things are, because you give up kidding yourself with idiotic whig views of history. There is no automatic improvment as centuries go by, there is simply what there has always been, right and wrong.

Two thousand years ago, when a Roman citizen didn't want a child, for whatever reason, he simply left the infant exposed to be killed by germs, weather or the dogs in the street; today, we have the abortion industry.

For some incomprehensible reason, some people think there is a difference between the two practices, presumably based on the fact that you don't see dead infants lying in the streets anymore and, one assumes, if you don't see it, it isn't happening.

There has been no whig progression, mankind is as savage as ever and it is still the decision of the individual whether or not he (or in this case, SHE) is going to be a savage or not. Good and evil, right and wrong, and forget the phony "compassion" of liberals - it's not them you'll answer to on Judgement Day.

Your Grace.Nadine Dorries was shabbily treated by her colleagues at Westminster. The Pro-Abortion lobby is as strong at Downing St. it would seem as the Gay lobby is. How can we avoid small specialist groups exercising such power on the most influential politicians?Answer: Integrity in politics.

You misunderstood what Ann Furedi said in the interview. James Naughtie asked if it was illegal for doctors to pre-sign the forms. Furedi said, rightly, it was a grey area. She did not say that the 1967 Act was a grey area. The law does not stipulate how the paperwork is completed, it says that two doctors must give their consent in the terms of the law.James Heartfield

No, there was no misunderstanding. If the doctor signs the form without first examining the woman, to what is he giving consent? Purely her desire to have an abortion. In which case, why was consent required in the first place? No, this is a reaction to a law written in 1967 when people had "less enlightened" opinions on abortion. They are simply getting around the law to establish the modern idea of abortion without restraint.

The only abortions that are problematic anymore are abortions that de-value the lives of powerful groups (for example, women and homosexuals.) Powerless groups (say, Down's Syndrome or the disabled) can be aborted without fuss or bother. Or obeying the law, it seems.

Yes, indeed, it was a misunderstanding. People pre-sign forms all the time in many circumstances. The law deals with the act of consent, the form is only the form of consent. Furedi was invited to say that pre-signing the form was illegal, and, rightly, she said it was a grey area.You want her to have said that the law was a grey area, but she did not. Persisting in that error is just dishonest.James Heartfield

20 years ago, as a GP I was asked to provide a backdated signature for one of my patients after the abortion had already been carried out. I refused of course, I have never signed one of those forms and never will. No doubt someone was willing to perjure themselves. Of course they would not have seen it that way, employing the standard secularist reasoning that the desire not to be with child in itself satisfies the notoriously vague 'mental health' clause.

The idea that the UK has anything other than abortion on request as a routine method of birth control is a self deluding sham, a fig leaf of conscience. Might as well recognise this in law and do away with ANY requirement for a medical certificate. The innocent blood cries out to heaven just the same.

No, and there never will be since homosexuality is a chosen behavior. But that won't stop people from looking for the 'gay gene.' Nor would it stop people from acting on that knowledge if such a mythical gene were ever presented to the public as fact. If women started showing up a clincs to abort 'gay children' you can bet there would be an outcry from people just like you. Laws would be created making it illegal to test for said gene so that people couldn't get the knowledge to act on.

And why would that be so? If abortion is a private decision, why should the motive matter? But it does matter, because no one wants to be told that it would be better if he had never been born. Powerful groups can act on that offense. Weak groups cannot.

Old Ernst is utterly confused by the claims of pre-signed consent forms by 2 doctors is 'grey'. The doctors signing it are therefore NOT neccessarily the people who may then advise or not advise the patient properly or fully.

As all surgical procedures in the UK require that consent form must meet certain criteria regarding the capacity to understand what is discussed as well as the obvious complications that can occur, leading to lawful claims of coercion and negligence.

What about the capacity to consent.

An individual who is able to understand the nature and anticipated effect of proposed medical treatment and alternatives, and to appreciate the consequences of refusing treatment, is considered to have the necessary capacity to give valid consent. However, there are special circumstances to which particular attention must be given such as in the case of minors or Mental incapacity / Substitute decision-making .

It all depends on whether the patient is able to appreciate adequately the nature of the proposed treatment, its anticipated effect and the alternatives and has been advised and assessed properly.

It appears the Abortion Act is claiming supremacy over the normal rules applicable that the presence of a signed consent form does not in itself prove valid consent to treatment – "the important factors will always be the quality, extent and accuracy of the information given beforehand and understood by the patient." Being able to demonstrate this afterwards depends on contemporaneous notes recording the key points discussed and relevant warnings given to the patient by the signing Doctors.

Turning a blind eye to pre-selectively agreed murder but then a foetus has NO RIGHTS! It is a mere lump of snot residing in a woman's womb.

Goodness me, are we that desperate that someone in Parliament will just once state the truth on one subject, that we immediately declare them Prime Ministerial material if they do.?

Not a Mrs T is she but then who in Parliament is, man or woman? Still that is not a valid assessment of Mrs Dorries PM qualities, which are sparse.

It was the best of times (a crisis is occuring regarding christian faith being brought to the fore), it was the worst of times (it shines the sunlight on the depraved nature and reasoning of our society and it's justification for what it does or intends to do on our behalf, unmanifestoed)

Homosexuality is as much a chosen behaviour as heterosexuality. However, it's a sexual orientation and certainly one I didn't choose no matter how much reality the religious want to bend to suit their ungrounded beliefs. As for an outcry from people 'just like me', is that people who have a homosexual orientation too? It's impressive that even an abortion thread can be gratuitously made into a thread about homosexuality almost immediately by the religious. We're easy targets, I suppose, and a handy rallying point.

Old Ernst is utterly confused by the claims of pre-signed consent forms by 2 doctors is 'grey'. The doctors signing it are therefore NOT neccessarily the people who may then advise or not advise the patient properly or fully.

As all surgical procedures in the UK require that consent form must meet certain criteria regarding the capacity to understand what is discussed as well as the obvious complications that can occur, leading to lawful claims of coercion and negligence.

What about the capacity to consent.

An individual who is able to understand the nature and anticipated effect of proposed medical treatment and alternatives, and to appreciate the consequences of refusing treatment, is considered to have the necessary capacity to give valid consent. However, there are special circumstances to which particular attention must be given such as in the case of minors or Mental incapacity / Substitute decision-making .

It all depends on whether the patient is able to appreciate adequately the nature of the proposed treatment, its anticipated effect and the alternatives and has been advised and assessed properly.

It appears the Abortion Act is claiming supremacy over the normal rules applicable that the presence of a signed consent form does not in itself prove valid consent to treatment – "the important factors will always be the quality, extent and accuracy of the information given beforehand and understood by the patient." Being able to demonstrate this afterwards depends on contemporaneous notes recording the key points discussed and relevant warnings given to the patient by the signing Doctors.

Turning a blind eye to pre-selective murder but then a foetus has NO RIGHTS! It is a mere lump of snot residing in a woman's womb.

Most of the religious right-wingers on here seem to be sneering at the phrase 'woman's right to choose' - sorry, but it IS our right to choose. Nothing you can do or say will ever change that. A foetus aborted six weeks after conception is NOT the same as a murdered newborn baby. It is NOT the same as a murdered child. I know you like to ignore the scientific evidence and paint all pro-choice activists as hardcore baby killers, but that simply isn't the case. Many women (such as myself) who have had abortions want very much to have children later on in life. Many women have become pregnant in unprecedented and traumatic situations (such as rape) and NOT from being careless, loose, or whatever you want to call it (although even if that was the case, it makes no difference). Saying stuff like 'Oh put the baby up for adoption' is ignoring the massive trauma of pregnancy, childbirth, and the emotional scarring of having to give a baby up.

In short: freedom of choice. You don't want to have an abortion? Fine, don't have one, but don't you dare try to interfere with the rights of the women that do.

Nowhere man, I am not a Christian anti-abortionist therefore obviously no foetus, baby, child, or defenseless adult is safe from a vacuum pump inserted into their brains if they become inconvenient as far as I am concerned. It's an inescapable conclusion for People Like Me.

Bottlenose says that giving up a child for adoption is emotionally scarring for a woman. However, having one killed and dismembered presents no ethical concern whatsoever? Oh what 'interesting' times we live in.

Did you actually disagree with anything I said? I made three basic points:

1. Pencil-whipping consent forms is a clear violation of both the spirit and the intent of the law.

2. Consent forms are being pencil-whipped in order to implement abortion on demand. The 'gray area' is merely a gap in the law that allows the intent of the law to be ignored.

3. Modern restrictions on abortion are put in place to protect groups that would otherwise find themselves devalued if abortion were allowed for reason of the characteristic that defines their group.

You have too much intellectual integrity to actually deny that restrictions would be put in place to prevent abortions for the 'gay gene.' And, yes, it would be people like you who made this argument - to whit, non-Christian pro-abortionists. You know I am right.

Yes. I disagree that homosexuality is a chosen behaviour, it's a sexual orientation. It's actually very offensive to claim it's a choice given what some of us have suffered in real life but, hey, offense is just part of forum life. I also disagreed with your claim that the disabled are not a powerful group, at least in the UK, only blogger decided to ditch the comment. That would somewhat undermine your point if you accept it. Finally, abortion is not actually a private matter in the UK, abortion is technically not even legal.

Also, to reiterate, I think you were being gratuitous including homosexuality there when there isn't even a foetal test. It's not as though the religious here aren't utterly obsessed with sexuality as it is. I'm not minded to argument about abortion, yet again, and listen to the same tired old arguments in return. Hence, I haven't posted an opinion here. Not that it actually stopped one of the left-footers launching off as though I have in the hope of having someone with whom to argue.

Dear BottlenoseI am a scientist and a Christian. Science only takes you so far, it has its limits. It can tell you what and how but not why. The bible speaks of a loving and holy God who wants a relationship with us but gives us the choice of accepting Him or rejecting Him. Rejecting Him is when we do our own thing; He has given us a conscience as one guide to know when we do wrong. He also loves us so much that He sent His only son Jesus to die for us so that if we acknowledge our wrong before God, and accept that Jesus is indeed God's son we will have peace and a restored relationship with Him.When you aborted your baby you did wrong, but what you did was not unforgivable. If you pray to God sincerely, say sorry, He is gracious and you will find peace and forgiveness.

Inspector here. Thought he’d heard a screaming feminist, and here she is, Bottlenose. And she says..

Many women (such as myself) who have had abortions want very much to have children later on in life

Do you now ? And more than one abortion has it been. Let’s see how it got to that. You dress up, go to town. Meet you friends, and all get rat-arsed on alcohol. Bad enough just to watch, as the Inspector has done and heard you types doing it. Then it’s off to a club. Barely conscious, you flirt with everything in trousers and are ‘pulled’ by some unsuitable type. He takes you home, and then rapes you and leaves. When you come to, you have a good old cry, ring your friends and swear you’ll never do that to yourself again, at least until the next time. 3 months down the line, your periods have stopped, you think back and barely remember the rape, and book into the abortion clinic.

So there you have it. Liberalism has made a heartless monster out of you, and a few million other women. What a truly depraved life you lead. You sicken all decent people….

the massive trauma of pregnancy, childbirth, and the emotional scarring of having to give a baby up.

Know all the buzz words don’t you. All that is bullshit to you, and you know it. The truth is you just don’t care for anything other than your own so called pleasures in life. And one of those ‘pleasures’ is abortion on demand...

Strong meat isn’t it DanJ0. Inspector notes you have a new friend - Nowhere Man has taken a shine to you. That means when you’re seeking attention as you are wont to do, you can start on him rather than irritating the Inspector...

You might feel totally different about abortion once you have had or looked after some children yourself. You might think that it is a sensible idea for women to be able to have all the options presented in an unbiased way through counselling.

You might well think that a woman giving up her baby for adoption rather than putting an end to its life before it is born is a more humane way of doing things for 21st century living, that is if you feel at all compassionate about human life?

Re: pro signing, I can imagine that there are so many forms to sign that Dr's who have a busy schedule simply can't keep up.

Inspector: "That means when you’re seeking attention as you are wont to do, you can start on him rather than irritating the Inspector..."

Seriously, isn't that just another Dodo ID? He has almost exactly the same attachment to me that Dodo has, and with all the same psychological issues, lack of self-esteem, etc that he has, and just like Dodo he's a self-styled Catholic with no discernable god onboard. If they're different people then they're almost certainly twins separated at birth. I tend to treat them as the same ID; that is, I treat both of them with contempt.

Interesting response to be caught out - not that long ago they were supporting a pro-abortion advisory service "investigating" faith based advisory services and screaming to the rooftops demanding their being banned or excluded for daring to advise women against having an abortion ...

Now they don't like the fact thet their misconduct (I'm trying avoid pre-empting any criminal charges) is exposed.

Abortion is murder by another name! No civilised power in the galaxy agrees with it. I appreciate that your medical facilities are next to stone age, but the barbarism of murder of a races children will mark the human out as a backward, savage race for many years...

So Bottlenose would prefer to kill, to have 'her career' than to have a child? This world is a savage place indeed! And what is this stuff about a 'woman's right to choose'? As far as I know the human species is not androgynous, so TWO persons are INVOLVED in creating life? What about man's rights?!?

DanJ0. You do have a point regarding aborting gay babies. The Inspector recalls a campaign from some years ago about aborting of foetus’ with cleft palate. Yet an uncomplicated surgery will put that right. If his memory serves him well, the lady concerned was a CoE clergywomen, herself a cleft palate baby and a somewhat pretty girl. So, come in with us, and join the other side...

The average number of abortions are more than 195,000 per year over the last 10 years.

This is well over 500 abortions every day of the year.

96% of abortions were funded by the NHS, compared with 47% prior to 1990.

99.96% of abortions were carried out on the basis of risk to the mother’s mental health.

Millions of abortions have been carried out in the UK, not because of life-threatening conditions involving the baby, not because of serious physical conditions involving the mother, but to ensure the mental health of the mother.

Is it the case that abortion is now virtually on demand?”

Do we value children in our society? Abortion is now so commonplace that, far from being a last resort, it is often the first port of call.

When will this dreadful slaughter stop? From what I can see from your horror of a fact sheet the human kills other humans at will!

The state agreed murder of life, is the hall mark of the SAVAGE! Thank your Sky Gods that there are men such as you, Carl Jacobs and the Inspector who are willing, to stand, as lone voices, for the human race, for the civilised races and for life!

I think you were being gratuitous including homosexuality there when there isn't even a foetal test.

There was nothing gratuitous about it. I included the suggestion because it exposes a dilemma. Do you:

a. Assert that women should not be allowed to abort children for the sole reason of a 'gay gene' and thus collapse the foundation of your own position. Why should a woman be allowed to abort to avoid stretch marks, but not allowed to abort because she doesn't want a homosexual child. The self-interest in question is yours, and not hers.

b. Accept that parents will abort children because of an alleged predisposition to homosexuality. Because you know that the acceptance of homosexuality remains in the abstract. It does not extend to the personal. A man might accept homosexuality in San Francisco. He still doesn't want his son coming home with a wife named Bruce. And what does it do to the perception of homosexuality when large numbers of parents appeal to abortion to avoid it?

It's much easier for you to avoid the issue than face it.

It's actually very offensive to claim it's a choice given what some of us have suffered in real life

I acknowledge this, but I can't do anything about it. My position is by definition offensive to you. The only way to fix this would be for me to repudiate what I believe. This I cannot do.

However, the facts and figures posted do not come from a 'Catholic Fundamentalist' site - whatever that might be. The clue, and to the shame of all Christians, is the figures from the USA.

The 'religious' group participating at the lowest level in this genocide is the Jewish people. Catholics and Protestants account for the largest groups, behind atheists and evangelical born again Christians.

Rachel is in Hong Kong, for reasons about Rugby, still as fiesty as ever; I think she wants her boy friend to drop on one knee and propose.

Anna is still sulking around the mansion, but I think really fancies either Inspector or Cressida De Nova (for some reasons she thinks she is some kind of 'hot Itallian girl'.

My Brothers , Samuel and Joshua are doing OK.

Samuel is continuing his first year as an Ordinand in the C of E and Joshua is in Israel and his wife has just finished her stint in the IDF.

I'm OK and as a mother of four (another on his/her way!) I've got the following to say re abortion :

Judeo-Christian tradition going back thousands of years has always valued human life, including unborn human life.

Psalm 139 describes the development of the unborn baby: "For you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body."

Everything that determines the individuality and originality of a person is established at conception. The first single cell contains the entire genetic blueprint in all its complexity :

*The heart starts beating between 18 and 25 days.

*Electrical brainwaves have been recorded at 43 days on an EEG. If the absence of a brainwave indicates death, why will pro-abortionists not accept that the presence of a brainwave is a confirmation of life?

*The brain and all body systems are present by 8 weeks and functioning a month later.

*At 8 weeks, the baby will wake and sleep, make a fist, suck his/her thumb, and get hiccups.

*At the end of 9 weeks, the baby has/her his own unique finger prints.

*At 11-12 weeks, the baby is sensative to heat, touch, light and noise. All body systems are working. He/she weighs about 28g and is 6-7.5 cm long.

Could Anna Anglican/Rachel/Hannah etc really be Cressida De Nova in drag? I notice that these Kavanagh's have a flair for the theatrical and Cressia seems to be into poety (perhaps even a poem about me would be nice!).

If I may, I'd like to ask for some definite direction. The points made by the article seems so clear. Here in the comments more interesting and informed point are brought to bear. The issue seems so black and white and the situation so serious, what can be done? Grace and humour, wit and composure are always necessary and important, yet if this issue is as it seems to be, surely words are not enough? Surely it almost becomes an offence in itself to discuss...and then move on to the next topic. I mean no accusation here against anyone. I am, in truth, asking for those with the wisdom and knowledge for it - what now? What can be done? What should be done? The reasoning and the talk is clear enough, the terms could not be more emphatic. If ever there was a need to act on what one knows and believes, surely this must qualify? Please could someone advise - after prayer - what must we do?

HannahWelcome to the blog - I'll probably be chastised for presuming to welcome you but what the heck!

Goodness, what a busy family! All Old Testament names too - is your father a minister?

Rachel took umbrage with me, assuming I had 'old fashioned' views about women. I hope her boyfriend can handle her temperment! If he doesn't drop on one knee, she might well ensure he ends up flat on his back!

I suspected Anna has a soft spot for the Inspector. He is a good soul despite his Edwardian phraseology and yearning for times when things were simpler. I should point out that Anna will have to move quickly as a senior nurse has shown an interest. Cressida de Nova may well be a 'hot Italian girl',I suspect French, but from the little I know I would say she is into red blooded males. DanJ0 could be an outside possibility for Anna if she has patience!

Good luck to Samuel and let's hope there is a Church of England by the time he completes his preparation for holy orders. The Catholic Church would welcome him, I'm sure.

So, Joshua is in Israel and and married to an Israeli. Difficult times ahead for that nation.

And you, bare foot in the kitchen with a baby on the way? Busy times ahead and I do hope it all goes well for baby, you and your husband.

A word of advice in 'Cranmer's World' - all is not always what it seems.

Firstly, you haven't actually stated my position correctly and so immediately there's a straw man issue again. I'm tired of pointing those out all the time to various people who just need someone, anyone, to argue against. Secondly, as ever, you create a false dichotomy to make your case. I'd have thought the third area would be rather obvious, but hey. Thirdly, the comment up there does you no credit at all. I have already said I'm not minded to argue about abortion yet again. I'm afraid your imagining a dilemma and essentially insisting that unless I step up on demand to argue it down as your stooge I automatically lose the argument you want me to take part in is not going to cut it. You could try throwing out another hook for someone to argue against, replacing homosexuality with another gratuitous link, if you're not happy simply tutting about abortion and being impotently outraged with the other religionists here.

"I acknowledge this, but I can't do anything about it. My position is by definition offensive to you. The only way to fix this would be for me to repudiate what I believe. This I cannot do."

I've come across many people who can't accept the reality and so try to bend the world to suit their beliefs instead. People who claim fossils were put there by Satan to test their faith in creatinism, for instance. I have a mental compartment for these kind of cherished beliefs, labelled under 'D'. It takes all sorts to make a world, etc.

Abortion is a difficult subject to address as it pertains exclusively to women. Women are mothers and still the nurturers of out tribes.

It horrifies me to think such significant number of women may be using abortion as a family planningoption to decide gender and convenience.Particularly chilling as there are effective contraceptive devices easily obtainable to prevent pregnancy.

However I do support abortion in special circumstances of brutal rape and incest and particularly where young children are involved.

Not so long ago a nine year old child was raped by her stepfather. Her mother procured an abortion for her. The Bishop of the diocese summarily excommunicated the mother and the doctors attending her.I am confident that he along with every other sadistic sanctimonious cruel clergyman posing as a Christian will rot in hell.

I count myself lucky to have never have known a mother who would not have made that same decision.

Hannah , I think your sister Anna must be deranged to be even remotely entertaining thoughts about the Inspector but of course not about me.....now me ,that's different, I can understand that, even though I am not Italian ,a lesbian, or a ball tearer(well not completely)

Best be careful.Too much contact with this tribe ofunruly chauvinistic men could drivea hot heterosexual Anglaise into the arms of the Carmelites or even worse!

Nowhere man: "It is interesting as it helps to unpick the conflicting strands of women's rights and, special interest group rights and we do want your input."

No, you just want a forum fight and I really can't be bothered with it. Moroever this is exactly what the Dodo ID does, latch onto someone brighter and peep out from behind their skirts. If you're not Dodo then the similarity is really spooky.

Let's face it, it is not as though I have put forward an argument I need to defend on this thread, Carl just needs someone to argue his own ideas with and you like the idea of sniping from the sidelines for your own psychological needs. Somehow this is my problem? I think not.

Besides, just look at Carl's construction there. Consider the type of attributes in question and the related ethics for each. Then consider the two most relevant laws and my actual position on abortion rather then one some people imagine. The 'dilemma' is just a Disneyland construction.

Let me retype my comment blogger (mobile version) lost yesterday as it might be useful in future. I don't know what the situation is like in the States but the disabled are not a powerless group in the UK. Quite the opposite in some ways, at least in law.

In the UK, they're as protected in law as Christians, homosexuals, racial groups, and other minorities. They also have lobby groups and the public are pretty sympathetic to their needs on the whole. Moreover, our society makes particular effort to open the public space up for disability.

This includes duties in law on employers, local government, health service, and so on. Special toilets, dropped kerb stones, road crossings, dedicated parking spaces, access requirements built into new buildings [...].

The area where they are not so powerful is in the benefits system, and especially when a Tory government is in power and intent on cost saving. Nevertheless, the benefits system is nominally geared towards their individual needs too.

So, the claim that the disabled are not powerful as a group, like women or, allegedly, homosexuals are, is rather curious one. Of course, the two most relevant abortion laws have things to say about foetal abnormalities and so I suppose making the disabled out to be somehow powerless would be a useful tactic.

Is that the reason why the clauses in the laws exist? No. Could they be blocked-replaced with clauses about selecting for blue eyes and blond hair without a change of intent or justification or ethics? No. Therefore, one might question the whole form of this thing.

Nowhere man, I've set out the basic structure of a suitable counter argument right there. I think that stuff, just as it is, does the required job already. Which is more than I'm obliged to do. You can have that for free. If you don't like it then, well, tough.

As for the rest, I've set out and defended my position on abortion in the past and I'm quite happy with the result. Subsequent arguments are really just about premises now. Hence, what's the point with people with related wooooo beliefs?

In terms of sensible debate, I'm pretty certain there is none to be had with you. It's the same with the Dodo ID. Even if I had one with Carl, it would just be disrupted by the Three Amigos (Catholic version) anyway. Non-Catholic arguments are intolerable to you lot.

What a truely shocking example you have given and I thank God no child of mine was ever subjected to the abuse experienced by this poor girl. I also thank God that as a parent I was never placed in the position of having to consider her immediate and worldly welfare and deciding whether to follow what I understand to be God's will.

I cannot put my hand on my heart, and say I would not have done what these parents did. The only parallel in the Bible I can think of is God's command that Isaac be sacrificed by Abraham. Sometimes we are called by God to do things we do not fully understand or accept. However, I am no Abraham, and, if I agreed to this abortion, I would do so knowing I was failing God and that what I was doing was a grievous sin and I would for His forgiveness and understanding.

Please don't call the Bishop in this situation "sadistic sanctimonious and cruel" for taking the action he did. He could have taken no other course. The Church's moral position is that an evil act, in this case abortion, is never justified because it results in an intended good outcome. I hope the clergy involved were not heartless and that the excommunication for the parents and others involved will, in time, be lifted.

DanJ0All human life strives for independence, consciousness and self-awareness. How can you, assuming you have achieved this state, will it out of existance? You cannot. It's a logical impossibility. Then, neither have you the right to do so to another emerging and developing person.

I think I know your position on abortion quite well, since we have argued it in the past. I have never heard you express any reservation about any abortion prior to 24 weeks. If I am wrong, you are free to correct me. I would in fact appreciate it since it is important to me to accurately represent your position.

That being said, I did not intend to specifically target you on this thread. I have argued this subject a long time. The arguments of the pro-abortion side are firmly rooted in the autonomy of the mother. Any potential competing claims on behalf of the child are dismissed by denying the personhood of the child. What remains is a private decision of "My body, my choice." The private nature of the decision rules out any public standing to interfere. If anyone asks the woman about to her motivations, she can respond "None of your business." She can receive an abortion for any reason or no reason as she sees fit. Indeed, that is the reason that doctors are pre-signing consent forms. It was a position so eloquently expressed by Bottlenose on this very thread.

The dilemma is thus not a false dichotomy but an equivalence partition. To affirm the autonomy of the mother in her choice, you cannot make distinctions based upon her motivation. To assert that some motivations are illicit, you must deny the primacy of her choice. But if you do that, you undermine the whole of the pro-abortion case as it has been established for four decades. You argument then becomes "Her body, her choice ... unless I say otherwise." Where did you suddenly find standing to interfere with her private decisions? The private decision has suddenly become very public, and the woman is suddenly at risk of being compelled to accept the responsibilities of motherhood. But isn't this exactly my case? Haven't I been told for years that my position would be constitute an immoral imposition on the autonomy of the mother?

As for the disabled, yes, that Spina Bifida lobby is quite powerful, isn't? And politicians live in fear of the Down's Syndrome vote. Not all disabilities are the result of birth defects, and therefore not all disabilities are subject to eradication through abortion. I am talking about a much smaller group than the sum total of all people considered disabled. The modern age has taught us that we are entitled to perfect children, and abortion has become a tool to enforce that expectation. But just ask someone with Spina Bifida what it means to him to know that those like him are being ruthlessly aborted.

One cannot fault your logic which is supported by available statistics.

In England and Wales, 99.96% of abortions in 2010 were carried out on the basis of "risk to the mother’s mental health". This undefined, catch all, category actually conceals reasons.

As a start, and as over 90% of abortions are are publically funded here, the doctors approving and performing these abortions should be required by law to keep information on the specific mental health problem anticipated and how they arrived at their professional judgement. They can then be held to account in law. This information can be shared as a matter of public record without breaching patient confidentiality in the same way that figures on other health issues are made publically available e.g. AIDS.

This, along with independent counselling, may go some way to reducing the 200,000 abortions per year funded by the National Health Service and carried out in profit driven, private clinics.

Do you think pro-lifers would be more successful if you moved away from all of this moral panic stuff? How about agitating for proper social support for mothers and children - e.g. protecting sure start, fighting for the care to learn grant or to protect Access courses? How about looking at the way young or single mothers are demonised as parasites by the right wing? Or is a foetus with no consciousness or sensation of pain more easy to get outraged about at that point than later on when it becomes a child and actually has enough awareness to suffer from the society you create?

Just as Abel's blood cried out from the ground after Cain murdered him, so does the blood of every aborted baby in the world cry out to God from the ground for justice.

If God could hear the voice of Abel's blood crying out to Him from the ground (Genesis 4:10), do you really believe That Our God has somehow missed the cries of all those infants who've been butchered in our nation since 1967?

Where do they go?

The Lord states nothing directly regarding this as He, I am sure, would not want desperate parents misinterpreting His Words and them hoping that their children would live to believe on Him going direct to heaven by murdering their beloeved offspring, in the hope of meeting them again one day in heaven rather than their children being lost forever by rejecting Jesus in this life!

However, we have a common occurence nowadays that has been called or is known as SIDS, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.King David suffered this same loss and was inspired by the Holy Spirit to say after the Lord had judged him for his sin below stated

"“However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die” (2 Samuel 12:14)."

Nathan assured David that the punishment he deserved has been taken away (we know this means it has been transferred to Christ). But God cannot allow His name to be blasphemed by allowing it to appear that He does not care about sin. From the very beginning the Bible teaches us that the wages of sin is death (see Genesis 2:17; 4:8, 23; 5:1ff.; Romans 6:23). For God to allow David's sins to have no painful consequences would enable the wicked to conclude that God does not really hate sin, nor does He do anything about it when we do sin.

But 2 samuel 12: 20-23;20 So David arose from the ground, washed, anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he came into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he came to his own house, and when he requested, they set food before him and he ate. 21 Then his servants said to him, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” 22 He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' 23 “But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I WILL GO TO HIM, BUT HE WILL NOT RETURN TO ME”

The child died because of David's sin but the child's destiny is not in doubt. When did the child accept messiah as his edeemer..The child had no knowledge whatsoever, he was not baptised or circumcised as this occurs on the 8th day and he died on the 7th.

David found consolation and comfort in the death of the child because he was assured that, although the child could not return to be with him in life, he would go to be with the child in heaven: If it was otherwise then David would have said '“I cannot bring this baby back to life, but I will join him in the grave.”'

David is looking beyond the grave, to his reunion with this child at the resurrection. Is that not the same sense that we gain from Paul's words below?

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

First, in the Book of Jonah, God clearly makes a distinction between children and adults, and rebukes Jonah for desiring that divine judgment come upon little children. Jonah 4:11

11 “Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 PERSONS WHO DO NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEIR RIGHT AND THEIR LEFT HAND, as well as many animals?”

Jonah had to learn a lesson about God's wonderful grace. Did Jonah deserve the plant and its shade? Then why was he angry when God took it away? Jonah did not deserve this gracious provision, yet Jonah somehow felt he did deserve it.

God does not argue with Jonah about the grace He has shown the repentant (adult) Israelites. He rebukes Jonah for desiring the children to suffer divine wrath along with the adults. Jonah does not distinguish between the children and the adult Ninevites; GOD DOES!!!!.

Whether under the Old Covenant or the New, children are not to suffer condemnation for the sins of their parents. Each one is to suffer for their own sins.

ALL IS GRACE, THAT NONE OF ADAM DESERVE, YET HE GRACIOUSLY GIVES BECAUSE HE LOVES US!

As Abraham said so long ago, “Shall not the judge of all the earth deal justly?” (Genesis 18:25).

Just Ernst' own opinions that God is gracious and just and all things must be viewed with the whole counsel of God in perspective.

Off to make sunday dinner now as Mrs B a bit cheesed off with Ernst for leaving iit so long.

To Cressida de Nova, I think those clergy need to watch Mark Driscoll's video "Why I hate Religion" on you tube until they understand. I might nmot have supported the mother's decision, had I been the girl's natural father, but I do not think that the situation is so clear as some would make out. On a related but separate point, this shows why we need to encourage people to remain married, because step parents, or mother's boyfriends are much more likely to sexually abuse a child than the natural parent. The source for this comment is Civitas Marriage Lite: The Rise of Cohabitation and its consequences by Patricia Morgan.

To those who question the legality or otherwise of "pre-signing" forms, the form is available on the web at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1991/499/schedule/1/madefor you to make your own mind up as to how much grey area there is. The regulations covering the control of abortion are contained in SI 1991/499 as amended by SI 2002/887

The Old Testament references are a start. We won't get into the differences between 'Hades', the place of the dead, a sort of 'waiting station' before Christ's death, descent there and resurrection, and the full 'Beatific Vision' that His atonement made possible.

I was hoping you might address the issue of Christ's command about the necessity of Baptism and how this affects salvation for aborted children and unBaptised children more generally:

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

As you know, Augustine held, because of the necessity of Baptism, the only definitive destinations of souls are Heaven and Hell. He concluded that unbaptised infants go to Hell as a consequence of Original Sin.

Theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas, speculated there was a 'limbo', a place on the edge of Heaven of benign existence, where the souls of children went who were not baptised. They did nothing to warrant eternal damnation in Hell, but because of Original Sin and the lack of Baptism they could not enter Heaven.

@ DodoSt T A was wrong. There is no Limbo. So all the souls assigned there did not go anon existent place. They either went to Heaven or Hell.

Does a six week old foetus have a soul? Are there degrees of suffering in Hell? Is Hell compartmentalised into sections for serious offenders and innocent unfortunates?

You would not put an unborn child in with the likes of Stalin or Hitler. We could presume they were in Hell. May be they are in Heaven if they made a perfect act of contrition just before they died.

It would be ironical if those two were in Heaven and all the babies were in Hell.You can understand I hope, why a lot of people cannot take this component of Catholicism seriously.The thinking and myth of the Dark ages cannot be transposed on the present day.

Why does your quote have to be taken literally concerning the water in Baptism . An adult person can go through the ritual of Baptism for mixed marriage reasons and not embrace the faith sincerely.The ritual is meaningless in this circumstance.

The most important part of Baptism is the embracing of the principles of the faith, not the symbolic waterritual.

Not everything should be taken so literally as this was written thousands of years ago.If a child dies he/she is pure..he/she cannot go to hell...original sin is a potential for sin that all humans are born with. A pure dead innocent never gets to realise it so must go to Heaven.

Animals now have souls (Because the last Pope to his credit was a dog lover)and declared them to have souls.Where do they go?

cressidaThe Catholic Church's speculation about 'limbo' were that - speculations.

Did you see my reply to gresham58 when he asked ... "Where do the souls' of aborted babies go?"

I answered: "Surely, straight into the loving arms of Jesus. Where else?" And that's what I believe.

I'm actually interested in what are "born againers" have to say and my question was posed for them.

As I've explained earlier, the Catholic Church is not as dogmatic about the ritual of Baptism as its dogma might at first sight suggest!

Catholics do believe that the consequence of Original Sin is eternal seperation from God unless we join Christ through Baptism. For adults of course this means having faith. For children, it's not so. The issue then is having accepted this doctrine, whether babies killed through abortion can enter Heaven.

The Catholic Church trusts in the infinite Mercy of God above all else. I remember a Priest asking me once that because man is bound by God's sacraments does it follow that God is?

dodo again"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

As you know, Augustine held, because of the necessity of Baptism, the only definitive destinations of souls are Heaven and Hell. He concluded that unbaptised infants go to Hell as a consequence of Original Sin.

Theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas, speculated there was a 'limbo', a place on the edge of Heaven of benign existence, where the souls of children went who were not baptised. They did nothing to warrant eternal damnation in Hell, but because of Original Sin and the lack of Baptism they could not enter Heaven." Have I not already answered you succinctly enough and ""Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."" The adult term is in use that applies to men and women NOT children or infants or unborn babies.

AS T A or Augustine do not assign souls to hell or heaven but the Almighty, Ernst takes their pronounciations with a sack of salt.

Neat side-step there. The use of the term 'man' is generic here, surely?

So you get the around your "born belief" by suggesting children who are unbaptised go to Heaven? Maybe? Or not?

I agree with you about the theological opinions of Augustine and Aqinas being private and not binding. They are worthy of consideration however and I wouldn't be quite so dismissive of these great minds.

"Neat side-step there. The use of the term 'man' is generic here, surely?" Do study koine greek young dickie and all will be revealed. English is limiting in defining the true expression inherent within a word given whereas koine has no such vagueness! It is possible the most precise language that was ever upon the earth..Perhaps WHY the Lord allowed it to be the common language of the people in Christ's time on earth??!!!To give an explanation of a specific word in greek would require a sentence in english to expand and signify what it related to and who and why. There are at least 4 different meanings simply to the word 'IF' which have profound significance if wrongly applied!

No neat side step used or needed, boy.The English translation can be limiting just as your beloved 'Vulgate' is, so you must go to the source.

So what do youbelieve about Original Sin and its implications for individual men?"

ps

What 'Sin' do you think is NOT applicable to our predicament and which one has justified our salvation..ALL IS GRACE.

AS the Lord justified the thief on the cross, what baptism did he go through whilst hung up there with our wonderful saviour..Did thew Lord give him a quick lesson in Original Sin, to be certain he knew he could not be saved unless baptised..Was David's child baptised so that David could say 'where he is, I go to him'??

'...the theological opinions of Augustine and Aqinas being private and not binding. They are worthy of consideration however and I wouldn't be quite so dismissive of these great minds.' What is a use of a humanistic great mind if it leads people away into error and from God presence?

Although St Augustine was raised as a Christian by his mother, at the age of 17 he left the church to follow the Manichaean religion and the philospohy of Plutonius and a hedonistic lifestyle followed, which showed in his writings regarding lust and his foundational principals on human reasoning!

ErnstyNaturally, I bow to your greater linguistic knowledge and more detailed study of biblical texts. However, let me press you a bit further.

In Greek just how many meanings does the word "man" have? I always understood Jesus uses it many times to refer to humanity as a whole - men, women and children.

Are you saying that ritual of Baptism by water and the spirit (the pouring of water and the words Christ gave us to use) is unnecessary for salvation? Are you saying that Original Sin, in and of itself, is not a mark on one's soul, inherited from Adam by allman, oops, people, that needs to be removed to attain the full Beatific Vision?

The early Church and orthodox Christianity believes the consequence of our shared sin with Adam has to be removed through the spiritual death and resurrection of Baptism. Do you? I've explained the Catholic Church's position on this and would like to learn yours.

The Thief on the Cross, like all others who died before Christ's atoning death and resurrection, would surely have been released from the 'underworld', 'Hades', including David and his sons. Access to Heaven, in Christ, was not possible before this.

As for Aquinas, well in my experience great sinners come to understand sin and I wouldn't hold his past against him or use it to suggest his writing was flawed. Indeed, he used his knowledge of heretical movements to dismantle them. Similarly, his use of Greek philosophical tools would not mean his theology was flawed. We have to use reason and logic to comprehend scripture.

Wasn't St Paul schooled in Judaic law and Talmudic reasoning? Look how he used that to teach us about the continuity between the First and the New Testament and to explain the Christian message.

According to Catholic belief Dodo,does that mean the entire world population before Jesus has not gone to Heaven because they all died in the state of original sin?

I always thought the NT was the prescribed reading for Christianity and that the OT was just a historical lead up to Christianity containing a lot of anti Christian content.Isn't that one of the reasons that Jesus got on the wrong side of the Pharisees,because he did not uphold the teachings of the OT and introduced his new thinking.

According to Catholic teaching, from memory, before Jesus died, releasing all mankind from Original Sin and atoning for all personal sin too, (past, present and future) there was no access to Heaven. When He died He went to Hades and opened the door to Heaven for all those generations there who were waiting to join God in His Kingdom.

The Old Testament is critical to an understanding of the New Testament. So much of it foreshadows Jesus and His message. It's a wonderful tapestry of inspiring history, wisdom and prophetic writing. Tough in places too.

What Jesus did was point out to the leading religious people of His time that they were missing the point of God's will. They were focusing on the act and not the spirit behind God's laws. On ritual acts and the meaning of those acts.

He revealed the meaning of the Old Testament - to know, understand and love God and to love one's self and one's neighbour. Fulfilling all this meant uniting with Him in Spirit, keeping His commands and having fellowship with other Christians to remember Him, pray and await His return.

This is a logical progression for those who endorse abortion and regard the ending of a life as to 'little or no account'. 'Designer babies' much like designer handbags and designer shoes are a commodity and the 'right to choose'is every ones right is it not?.

So the baby of the 'wrong sex' or the 'wrong colour eyes' is simply 'disposed of' much like last years fashions.

This is the result of man making 'moral choices'without consulting the Creator.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)